Вы находитесь на странице: 1из 4

EN BANC appears on its face to have been received by the Sangguniang Panglungsod

of Cotabato City on November 27, 2001.


[B.M. No. 1154. June 8, 2004]
Pursuant to this Courts Resolution2[2] dated December 3, 2002, Meling filed
IN THE MATTER OF THE DISQUALIFICATION OF BAR EXAMINEE his Answer with the OBC.
HARON S. MELING IN THE 2002 BAR EXAMINATIONS AND FOR
DISCIPLINARY ACTION AS MEMBER OF THE PHILIPPINE SHARIA BAR, In his Answer,3[3] Meling explains that he did not disclose the criminal cases
filed against him by Melendrez because retired Judge Corocoy Moson, their
ATTY. FROILAN R. MELENDREZ, petitioner, former professor, advised him to settle his misunderstanding with Melendrez.
Believing in good faith that the case would be settled because the said Judge
has moral ascendancy over them, he being their former professor in the
RESOLUTION
College of Law, Meling considered the three cases that actually arose from a
single incident and involving the same parties as closed and terminated.
TINGA, J.: Moreover, Meling denies the charges and adds that the acts complained of
do not involve moral turpitude.
The Court is here confronted with a Petition that seeks twin reliefs, one of
which is ripe while the other has been rendered moot by a supervening As regards the use of the title Attorney, Meling admits that some of his
event. communications really contained the word Attorney as they were, according
to him, typed by the office clerk.
The antecedents follow.
In its Report and Recommendation4[4] dated December 8, 2003, the OBC
On October 14, 2002, Atty. Froilan R. Melendrez (Melendrez) filed with the disposed of the charge of non-disclosure against Meling in this wise:
Office of the Bar Confidant (OBC) a Petition1[1] to disqualify Haron S. Meling
(Meling) from taking the 2002 Bar Examinations and to impose on him the The reasons of Meling in not disclosing the criminal cases filed against him in
appropriate disciplinary penalty as a member of the Philippine Sharia Bar. his petition to take the Bar Examinations are ludicrous. He should have
known that only the court of competent jurisdiction can dismiss cases, not a
In the Petition, Melendrez alleges that Meling did not disclose in his Petition retired judge nor a law professor. In fact, the cases filed against Meling are
to take the 2002 Bar Examinations that he has three (3) pending criminal still pending. Furthermore, granting arguendo that these cases were already
cases before the Municipal Trial Court in Cities (MTCC), Cotabato City, dismissed, he is still required to disclose the same for the Court to ascertain
namely: Criminal Cases Noa. 15685 and 15686, both for Grave Oral his good moral character. Petitions to take the Bar Examinations are made
Defamation, and Criminal Case No. 15687 for Less Serious Physical under oath, and should not be taken lightly by an applicant.
Injuries.
The merit of the cases against Meling is not material in this case. What
The above-mentioned cases arose from an incident which occurred on May matters is his act of concealing them which constitutes dishonesty.
21, 2001, when Meling allegedly uttered defamatory words against
Melendrez and his wife in front of media practitioners and other people. In Bar Matter 1209, the Court stated, thus:
Meling also purportedly attacked and hit the face of Melendrez wife causing
the injuries to the latter.

Furthermore, Melendrez alleges that Meling has been using the title 2
Attorney in his communications, as Secretary to the Mayor of Cotabato City,
despite the fact that he is not a member of the Bar. Attached to the Petition is 3
an indorsement letter which shows that Meling used the appellation and

1 4
It has been held that good moral character is what a person really is, as On the other hand, the prayer in the same Petition for the Court to impose
distinguished from good reputation or from the opinion generally entertained the appropriate sanctions upon him as a member of the Sharia Bar is ripe for
of him, the estimate in which he is held by the public in the place where he is resolution and has to be acted upon.
known. Moral character is not a subjective term but one which corresponds
to objective reality. The standard of personal and professional integrity is not Practice of law, whether under the regular or the Sharia Court, is not a
satisfied by such conduct as it merely enables a person to escape the matter of right but merely a privilege bestowed upon individuals who are not
penalty of criminal law. Good moral character includes at least common only learned in the law but who are also known to possess good moral
honesty. character.8[8] The requirement of good moral character is not only a
condition precedent to admission to the practice of law, its continued
The non-disclosure of Meling of the criminal cases filed against him makes possession is also essential for remaining in the practice of law.9[9]
him also answerable under Rule 7.01 of the Code of Professional
Responsibility which states that a lawyer shall be answerable for knowingly The standard form issued in connection with the application to take the 2002
making a false statement or suppressing a material fact in connection with Bar Examinations requires the applicant to aver that he or she has not been
his application for admission to the bar.5[5] charged with any act or omission punishable by law, rule or regulation before
a fiscal, judge, officer or administrative body, or indicted for, or accused or
As regards Melings use of the title Attorney, the OBC had this to say: convicted by any court or tribunal of, any offense or crime involving moral
turpitude; nor is there any pending case or charge against him/her. Despite
Anent the issue of the use of the appellation Attorney in his letters, the the declaration required by the form, Meling did not reveal that he has three
explanation of Meling is not acceptable. Aware that he is not a member of pending criminal cases. His deliberate silence constitutes concealment, done
the Bar, there was no valid reason why he signed as attorney whoever may under oath at that.
have typed the letters.
The disclosure requirement is imposed by the Court to determine whether
Although there is no showing that Meling is engaged in the practice of law, there is satisfactory evidence of good moral character of the applicant. 10[10]
the fact is, he is signing his communications as Atty. Haron S. Meling The nature of whatever cases are pending against the applicant would aid
knowing fully well that he is not entitled thereto. As held by the Court in Bar the Court in determining whether he is endowed with the moral fitness
Matter 1209, the unauthorized use of the appellation attorney may render a demanded of a lawyer. By concealing the existence of such cases, the
person liable for indirect contempt of court.6[6] applicant then flunks the test of fitness even if the cases are ultimately
proven to be unwarranted or insufficient to impugn or affect the good moral
character of the applicant.
Consequently, the OBC recommended that Meling not be allowed to take the
Lawyers Oath and sign the Roll of Attorneys in the event that he passes the
Bar Examinations. Further, it recommended that Melings membership in the Melings concealment of the fact that there are three (3) pending criminal
Sharia Bar be suspended until further orders from the Court. 7[7] cases against him speaks of his lack of the requisite good moral character
and results in the forfeiture of the privilege bestowed upon him as a member
of the Sharia Bar.
We fully concur with the findings and recommendation of the OBC. Meling,
however, did not pass the 2003 Bar Examinations. This renders the Petition,
insofar as it seeks to prevent Meling from taking the Lawyers Oath and Moreover, his use of the appellation Attorney, knowing fully well that he is
signing the Roll of Attorneys, moot and academic. not entitled to its use, cannot go unchecked. In Alawi v. Alauya,11[11] the
Court had the occasion to discuss the impropriety of the use of the title

5 8

6 9

7 10
Attorney by members of the Sharia Bar who are not likewise members of Copies of this Decision shall be circulated to all the Sharia Courts in the
the Philippine Bar. The respondent therein, an executive clerk of court of the country for their information and guidance.
4th Judicial Sharia District in Marawi City, used the title Attorney in several
correspondence in connection with the rescission of a contract entered into SO ORDERED.
by him in his private capacity. The Court declared that:

persons who pass the Sharia Bar are not full-fledged members of the In the matter of the Disqualification of Bar Examinee, Haron S. Meiling in the
Philippine Bar, hence, may only practice law before Sharia courts. While 2002 bar examinations and for disciplinary action as member of Philippine
one who has been admitted to the Sharia Bar, and one who has been Shari'a Bar, Melendrez.
admitted to the Philippine Bar, may both be considered counselors, in the
sense that they give counsel or advice in a professional capacity, only the
latter is an attorney. The title attorney is reserved to those who, having FACTS:
obtained the necessary degree in the study of law and successfully taken the
Bar Examinations, have been admitted to the Integrated Bar of the 1. MELENDREZ filed with the Office of the Bar Confidant (OBC) a
Philippines and remain members thereof in good standing; and it is they only Petition to disqualify Haron S. Meling (Meling) from taking the 2002
who are authorized to practice law in this jurisdiction. 12[12] Bar Examinations and to impose on him the appropriate disciplinary
penalty as a member of the Philippine Sharia Bar.
The judiciary has no place for dishonest officers of the court, such as Meling
in this case. The solemn task of administering justice demands that those a. Alleges that Meling did not disclose in his Petition to take the
who are privileged to be part of service therein, from the highest official to the 2002 Bar Examinations that he has three (3) pending
lowliest employee, must not only be competent and dedicated, but likewise criminal cases both for Grave Oral Defamation and for Less
live and practice the virtues of honesty and integrity. Anything short of this Serious Physical Injuries.
standard would diminish the public's faith in the Judiciary and constitutes
infidelity to the constitutional tenet that a public office is a public trust.
i. Meling allegedly uttered defamatory words
against Melendrez and his wife in front of media practitioners and other
In Leda v. Tabang, supra, the respondent concealed the fact of his marriage people.
in his application to take the Bar examinations and made conflicting ii. Meling also purportedly attacked and hit the
submissions before the Court. As a result, we found the respondent grossly face of Melendrez wife causing the injuries to the latter.
unfit and unworthy to continue in the practice of law and suspended him
therefrom until further orders from the Court.
b. Alleges that Meling has been using the title Attorney in his
communications, as Secretary to the Mayor of Cotabato City,
WHEREFORE, the Petition is GRANTED insofar as it seeks the imposition of despite the fact that he is not a member of the Bar.
appropriate sanctions upon Haron S. Meling as a member of the Philippine
Sharia Bar. Accordingly, the membership of Haron S. Meling in the
Philippine Sharia Bar is hereby SUSPENDED until further orders from the 2. MELING explains that he did not disclose the criminal cases
Court, the suspension to take effect immediately. Insofar as the Petition because retired Judge Corocoy Moson, their former professor,
seeks to prevent Haron S. Meling from taking the Lawyers Oath and signing advised him to settle misunderstanding.
the Roll of Attorneys as a member of the Philippine Bar, the same is
DISMISSED for having become moot and academic. b. Believing in good faith that the case would be settled
because the said Judge has moral ascendancy over them,
considered the three cases that arose from a single incident
as closed and terminated.
11
i. Denies the charges and added that the acts
12 do not involve moral turpitude.
b. Use of the title Attorney, Meling admits that some of his application for admission to the bar.
communications really contained the word Attorney as they
were typed by the office clerk. a. He is aware that he is not a member of the Bar, there was no
valid reason why he signed as attorney whoever may have
3. Office of Bar Confidant disposed of the charge of non-disclosure typed the letters. i.
against Meling: Unauthorized use of the appellation attorney may render a
person liable for indirect contempt of court.
b. Meling should have known that only the court of competent
jurisdiction can dismiss cases, not a retired judge nor a law 2. PRACTICE OF LAW IS A HIGH PERSONAL PRIVILEGE.
professor. In fact, the cases filed against Meling are still
pending. a. Limited to citizens of good moral character, with special
educational qualifications, duly ascertained and certified.
c. Even if these cases were already dismissed, he is still
required to disclose the same for the Court to ascertain his b. Requirement of good moral character is, in fact, of greater
good moral character. importance so far as the general public and the proper
administration of justice are concerned, than the possession
of legal learning.

ISSUE: 3. Application form of 2002 Bar Examinations requires the applicant


WON Melings act of concealing cases constitutes dishonesty. YES. that applicant to aver that he or she has not been charged with any
act or omission punishable by law, rule or regulation before a fiscal,
HELD: judge, officer or administrative body, or indicted for, or accused or
PETITION IS GRANTED. MEMBERSHIP IS SUSPENDED until further convicted by any court or tribunal of, any offense or crime involving
orders from the Court, the suspension to take effect immediately. Insofar as moral turpitude; nor is there any pending case or charge against
the Petition seeks to prevent Haron S. Meling from taking the Lawyers Oath him/her.
and signing the Roll of Attorneys as a member of the Philippine Bar, the
same is DISMISSED for having become moot and academic (Meling did not a. Meling did not reveal that he has three pending criminal
pass the bar). cases. His deliberate silence constitutes concealment, done
under oath at that.

1. Rule 7.01: A lawyer shall be answerable for knowingly making a


false statement or suppressing a material fact in connection with his

Вам также может понравиться